Bane is a lot older than Bruce and also has the disadvantage of having an anaesthetic being pumped into him at all times. Given all the disadvantages and hinderances amongst both of them and the moments in time they met and collided being vastly dissimilar in contrast, a lot would have to be considered and altered for them to be classed as having a fair fight.

Bane has not been out of action for 8 years and let his body waste away so badly he can't even walk without the aid of a cane. The fact that Bruce's bad condition had been highlighted to the point where a doctor listed the terrible damaged state his body was in and that he needed a strap on his leg just so he could walk without a cane shows who is at the extreme disadvantage here. Bane's age is not a factor and one that is never even mentioned in the movie. The anesthetic keeps the pain at bay we're told. So that's no hindrance.

So lets review; fully trained mercenary Bane with "The League of Shadows" seen in his fighting style, versus 8 year retired, cane hobbling Bruce.

Quote:

And it's not just a case of Bruce having to fight throughout all his problems and disadvantages and having to be at his peak, the same would have to be required for Bane too, although it seems many are seemingly disregarding this fact in favour of stroking their ego's and preferences for Batman and the Joker at Bane's expense.

No, it's facts being stated here, not ego stroking (What the heck has Joker got to do with this anyway?).

Fact 1: Bruce's body was in rotten shape as was mentioned several times, even expert medical opinion scene given. Alfred abandons Bruce because he thinks he is past his prime and can't be Batman any more.

Fact 2: The only disadvantage mentioned for Bane is his mask which keeps his pain at bay. That is evidence when Batman damages it in the finale and he becomes weakened. That's Bane's only weakness. His age was never a factor.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

Like I said, objectively, I agree with the idea that there was no fair fight between them onscreen, so no one really knows how a fight would go between them.

Agreed, though it seems as though others don't seem to see it this way and thus don't take everything into account from both parties.

Quote:

And I also don't see anyone saying that Bats would beat Bane easily.

No? I've seen quite a few post saying Batman would whoop Bane's behind easily and often portraying the scenario as though it would be a no-contest, so I wouldn't necessarily say that is true.

Quote:

Bane is meant to be a scary mofo who can give Batman a fight.

Yes, and a statement to this is the fact that Nolan chose him to be the main protagonist in TDKR amongst all the other various Bat-villains as he presented a new and worthy threat.

Quote:

And as for ego stroking, lets not act like Bane fans don't stroke their ego at Batman and Joker's expense:

"Oh, Joker may be the most popular Batman villain, but Bane is the ultimate/most dangerous villain."

I've never said that there isn't others on the other side that do the exact same thing, nor have I dismissed that type of behaviour from those parties either. I don't visit this area of the forums often these days, but from the majority chunks I have seen, the consensus' of the other sides seem to outweigh that of the Bane side, and thus the down-trodding shall we say of this character is what I've often witnessed. Though this is not an excuse, just an observation from the little time I've spent here lately.

Quote:

Not to mention certain fans acting like Bane is unstoppable, even without his Venom. I find it funny that I have to constantly remind people that Bane has never beaten Batman without the use of venom. That's not ego stroking. In fact, I usually say things like this to keep other fans ego stroking in check, especially since a few of them seem to know very little about a character they claim to love.

No, I agree with this, and it is also present within the other sides. Though it is not often highlighted as much as the majority consensus seem to be on the same page in regards to their preferences and likings, thus when this occurs they are often not called out on it.

Regardless, it wasn't about disagreement, it was about people completely ignoring any sort of evidence supporting Bane's side. A laundry list of reasoning was supplied, and it was almost completely ignored.

I, myself, posted a somewhat lengthy post giving specific real-world examples supporting the Bane side of the debate, and it was glossed over. Hence the, "people just didn't want to hear any reasoning," comment.

The bolded part being a good indicator as to why the post was glossed over. You act like every pro Bane post was ignored. They weren't. It seems like you're just a bit miffed that people didn't bother to respond to you, in that case, I suggest growing thicker skin cause that happens to everyone on the hype.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

I've never said that there isn't others on the other side that do the exact same thing, nor have I dismissed that type of behaviour from those parties either. I don't visit this area of the forums often these days, but from the majority chunks I have seen, the consensus' of the other sides seem to outweigh that of the Bane side, and thus the down-trodding shall we say of this character is what I've often witnessed. Though this is not an excuse, just an observation from the little time I've spent here lately.

All I can say is that there was a "TDK Batman vs Bane" poll on here, and Bane was winning by a considerable margin. What you're probably seeing is a vocal minority.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

The bolded part being a good indicator as to why the post was glossed over. You act like every pro Bane post was ignored. They weren't. It seems like you're just a bit miffed that people didn't bother to respond to you, in that case, I suggest growing thicker skin cause that happens to everyone on the hype.

Again, no. All I stated was that people simply didn't want to hear reasoning. This has nothing to do with my ego, and I have no reason to be upset over others not responding. And the numerous pro-Bane posts that I saw were not ignored, were pretty much shot down at seemingly every opportunity, with little valid reasoning or, again, ability to listen to the other side of the argument without blindly arguing against it.

I made a statement- one simply that people refused to listen to reasoning- and you began with these thinly-veiled potshots, for utterly no reason. So, somehow, a simple observation I mentioned in response to another question has now turned into your apparent attempts to put others down for no reason whatsoever. Sounds to me like the only ego issues seem to be coming from you.

How is that a fair fight? Bane has not been out of action for 8 years and let his body waste away so badly he can't even walk without the aid of a cane. The fact that Bruce's bad condition had been highlighted to the point where a doctor listed the terrible damaged state his body was in and that he needed a strap on his leg just so he could walk without a cane shows who is at the extreme disadvantage here. Bane's age is not a factor and one that is never even mentioned in the movie. The anesthetic keeps the pain at bay we're told. So that's no hindrance.

So lets review; fully trained mercenary Bane with "The League of Shadows" seen in his fighting style, versus 8 year retired, cane hobbling Bruce.

Right, so I've just basically stated that a fair fight would be where BOTH men would be in their peaks and at top physical condition, with none of their disadvantages present (i.e. Bruce's broken body, Bane's anaesthetic), yet you still don't think that is a fair enough platform for them to go toe to toe on? And just to make it clear for you, my statement is meant to be taken in theory, as if all of their problems and hinderances were absent (yes even taking away Bruce's 8 year rustiness) and they were able to go at it being at the absolute best they each can be.

Btw, I love how you are trying your hardest to outline and glorify Bruce's problems while downplaying Bane's even though they are present, and inevitably what Bruce eventually preys on to get the better of him. Good job!

Quote:

No, it's facts being stated here, not ego stroking (What the heck has Joker got to do with this anyway?).

Oh come on, you can honestly say you haven't seen instances when the Joker has brought into this discussion, with examples such as the Joker would give the Batman a bigger and better fight than Bane would, as well as Joker even being able to beat Bane in a fight?

As for the age issue not being a factor, I find that quite humourous. As quite often in this argument I've seen others saying a disadvantege for Bruce in TDKR was that he was older than he was in BB and TDK plus putting him at a disadavantage. I'm sorry but if it's going to be classed as a factor and disadvantage for one, then it's a very worthy factor and disadvantage for the other. No double standards, please.

Again, no. All I stated was that people simply didn't want to hear reasoning. This has nothing to do with my ego, and I have no reason to be upset over others not responding. And the numerous pro-Bane posts that I saw were not ignored, were pretty much shot down at seemingly every opportunity, with little valid reasoning or, again, ability to listen to the other side of the argument without blindly arguing against it.

So basically...your problem is that people don't feel the same way you do. Gotcha.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cunning Stunts

I made a statement- one simply that people refused to listen to reasoning- and you began with these thinly-veiled potshots, for utterly no reason. So, somehow, a simple observation I mentioned in response to another question has now turned into your apparent attempts to put others down for no reason whatsoever. Sounds to me like the only ego issues seem to be coming from you.

But, nice attempt.

I wouldn't say for no reason. Again, You basically seem to have a problem with the fact that not everyone agrees with your argument or people who share your reasoning. I mean, I could easily say that no one on the pro bane side is actually listening to reasoning from the opposite side either (which you fail to mention, by the way). But unlike you, I don't need them to. Because I understand that they disagree with me, so I have no expectation of a "I see your point" type of post.

And I'll agree that I have ego issues when I start complaining that no one reads my posts.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

Right, so I've just basically stated that a fair fight would be where BOTH men would be in their peaks and at top physical condition, with none of their disadvantages present (i.e. Bruce's broken body, Bane's anaesthetic), yet you still don't think that is a fair enough platform for them to go toe to toe on?

What? Where did I say that?

Quote:

And just to make it clear for you, my statement is meant to be taken in theory, as if all of their problems and hinderances were absent (yes even taking away Bruce's 8 year rustiness) and they were able to go at it being at the absolute best they each can be.

I'm not talking about your what if scenario. I'm talking about the situation as presented in the movie.

Quote:

Btw, I love how you are trying your hardest to outline and glorify Bruce's problems while downplaying Bane's even though they are present, and inevitably what Bruce eventually preys on to get the better of him. Good job!

You mean like how the movie glorified Bruce's problems and downplayed Bane's? Or at least the only problem they did present to his physical condition, and that being the mask. His age was never a factor. Just like Ra's being older was not a factor in him being a brilliant fighter able to train Bruce and go toe to toe with Batman.

I'm not downplaying anything. I'm telling you how the movie presented it. They never said his pain was a hindrance to him. They said the mask keeps it bay with the anesthetic. Shockingly the only time Bane began to lose was when the mask got damaged.

Imagine that

Quote:

Oh come on, you can honestly say you haven't seen instances when the Joker has brought into this discussion, with examples such as the Joker would give the Batman and bigger and better fight than Bane would, as well as Joker even being able to beat Bane in a fight?

No, I haven't. I'd laugh at such a suggestion. When it comes to criminal smarts and strategies you can pit Joker against Bane. But in a one on one fight Joker would be whupped. He can't take on Batman in a fair fight so how could he with Bane? Look at TDK, Joker fought dirty. Sicking attack dogs on Batman and then pummeling him with a steel bar while he was down struggling with them.

Quote:

As for the age not being a factor, I find that quite humourous. As quite often in this argument I've seen others saying a disadvantege for Bruce in TDKR was that he was older than he was in BB and TDK plus putting him at a disadavantage. I'm sorry but if it's going to be classed as a factor and disadvantage for one, then it's a very worthy factor and disadvantage for the other. No double standards, please.

It's not a double standard, it's a difference. Bruce aged 8 years and did not do a single damn thing to keep in shape or even remotely close to what he was when he was Batman. I can show you scans of comics that show Batman has been in action for over 8 years in Gotham and is still in as much of a physical peak as he was when he started. The reason being he kept up his training and physical exercises to stay at the top of his game. This Bruce Wayne didn't. He let his body waste away for 8 years.

Did Bane spend years like that? Is Bane so weak he needs a cane to walk, or a strap on his leg just to be able to walk around without one? Would Bane's body get the diagnosis Bruce got if he went for a physical? Of course not.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

I'm not talking about your what if scenario. I'm talking about the situation as presented in the movie.

Yes, indeed you are, and I was talking about the former, yet you're using my 'what if' scenario which in normal circumstances would be differentiated from the 'realistic' scenario seemingly as cannon to fuel you're argument.

Quote:

You mean like how the movie glorified Bruce's problems and downplayed Bane's? Or at least the only problem they did present to his physical condition, and that being the mask. His age was never a factor. Just like Ra's being older was not a factor in him being a brilliant fighter able to train Bruce and go toe to toe with Batman.

I'm not downplaying anything. I'm telling you how the movie presented it. They never said his pain was a hindrance to him. They said the mask keeps it bay with the anesthetic. Shockingly the only time Bane began to lose was when the mask got damaged.

Imagine that

Yes and we all know this and am I disputing those problems Bruce has? No! Really? Just because Bane's pain is being kept at bay doesn't mean it isn't a hinderance. It wasn't glorified as much as Bruce's problems because this was Bruce/Batman's story/film and not Bane's (who was only really touched upon), so for Bane's problems to be fully realised they'd need to be fleshed out and glorified like Bruce's? Surely we can all use our initiative here and realise Bane's pain being a possible hinderance, and one which came back to bite him and result in his partly demise at the end.

The age thing isn't really an issue, I agree, but if it's a reasonable excuse for one, then why shouldn't it be for the other?

Quote:

No, I haven't. I'd laugh at such a suggestion. When it comes to criminal smarts and strategies you can pit Joker against Bane. But in a one on one fight Joker would be whupped. He can't take on Batman in a fair fight so how could he with Bane? Look at TDK, Joker fought dirty. Sicking attack dogs on Batman and then pummeling him with a steel bar while he was down struggling with them.

Then you must have missed those instances like I missed some of the ones I mentioned earlier (no sarcasm meant here), but it's good to know you'd see the flaws and ridculousness in those kind of statements.

Quote:

It's not a double standard, it's a difference.

And I wouldn't have a problem with this, if those statements had highlighted what you have, but alas they didn't.

Quote:

Bruce aged 8 years and did not do a single damn thing to keep in shape or even remotely close to what he was when he was Batman. I can show you scans of comics that show Batman has been in action for over 8 years in Gotham and is still in as much of a physical peak as he was when he started. The reason being he kept up his training and physical exercises to stay at the top of his game. This Bruce Wayne didn't. He let his body waste away for 8 years.

Did Bane spend years like that? Is Bane so weak he needs a cane to walk, or a strap on his leg just to be able to walk around without one? Would Bane's body get the diagnosis Bruce got if he went for a physical? Of course not.

These are very true and reasonable points that I have no arguments with, and if the this argument began from my part on a more realistic platform we wouldn;t be in the dispute we are in now.

As for the part I bolded, I wouldn;'t be surprised if Bane's diagnosis was worse, minus the anaesthetic.

On my own with what? You've lost me 5 miles back on that one. I'm not commenting on your what if situation.

Quote:

Yes, indeed you are, and I was talking about the former, yet you're using my 'what if' scenario which in normal circumstances would be differentiated from the 'realistic' scenario seemingly as cannon to fuel you're argument.

I'm not using your what if scenario to fuel my argument. How can it? It's something you made up. It's not applicable here. You can only argue what the movie presented, not what might be. That's a different argument altogether.

Quote:

Yes and we all know this and am I disputing those problems Bruce has? No! Really? Just because Bane's pain is being kept at bay doesn't mean it isn't a hinderance.

You say it could be a hindrance but unless you've got something to support that it was this is just more guess work on your behalf. The only time his condition inhibited him was when Batman damaged the mask and he felt the pain that was inflicting his body because the anesthetic was damaged.

It's the equivalent to Bane not being a worthy fighter without his venom. Remember in Knightfall, Jean Paul Valley cut off his venom tube supply in their fight and Bane turned tail and ran. The venom was his crutch just as the anesthetic kept Bane at his peak in TDKR.

Take away Bane's wonder drug and he's not all that in a fight.

Quote:

It wasn't glorified as much as Bruce's problems because this was Bruce/Batman's story/film and not Bane's (who was only really touched upon), so for Bane's problems to be fully realised they'd need to be fleshed out and glorified like Bruce's?

It wasn't glorified because there was nothing to glorify. Why would they not highlight any physical inhibitions Bane has if it was relevant? Bane was being presented as a physical match to Batman. If Batman has weaknesses that were mentioned then so would Bane. They were mentioned, too. Just the actual one he had. The mask. The anesthetic in the mask keeping the pain at a tolerable level for him.

Nolan, the master of exposition and attention to details, would not omit a relevant weaknesses to Bane if there was indeed any others.

Quote:

Surely we can all use our initiative here and realise Bane's pain being a possible hinderance, and one which came back to bite him and result in his partly demise at the end.

Bane's pain was a hindrance. When the mask was damaged. That's when he began to lose. Pain cannot be a hindrance unless you feel it. If you don't feel it then it may as well not exist.

Quote:

The age thing isn't really an issue, I agree, but if it's a reasonable excuse for one, then why shouldn't it be for the other?

I've already explained why. If you pit two aged men against each other, one who's sat wasting away for 8 years vs a man who's spent his years training in the ways of the League of Shadows, then it's not hard to guess who'll come out the winner.

Quote:

These are very true and reasonable points that I have no arguments with, and if the this argument began from my part on a more realistic platform we wouldn;t be in the dispute we are in now.

I'm not sure what you mean by a realistic platform, but ok.

Quote:

As for the part I bolded, I wouldn;'t be surprised if Bane's diagnosis was worse, minus the anaesthetic.

__________________
"Sometimes I remember it one way. Sometimes another. If I'm going to have a past, I prefer it to be multiple choice!"

By the way, as to Bruce's weakness in TDKR, once he got that leg brace he was able to break a wall with a kick. Then he proceeded to kick the asses of Bane's goons on two separate occasions. Sure, he was rusty but he was in no way helpless in a fight. He lost the first time because he was overconfident not because he was so incredibly old (not even 40, that's an ancient old guy) or injured.

I dunno,Bruce was clearly intended to be at his worst both physically and mentally.That's the "spirit" of the story,The Dark Knight RISES.But I sincerely do not think Nolan succeeded in showing that(atleast not before Bruce was beaten in the sewer fight).If anything TDKR Batman comes across looking infinitely better than TDK Batman if you go by actual showings.

TDK Batman decided to quit and surrender himself the moment Joker showed up it was Alfred and Harvey telling him to endure and never say die,whereas it was the exact opposite in TDKR.The moment Bruce heard about Bane he could'nt wait to jump back in to action. Also Miranda said Bruce became a recluse three years ago after he shut down the energy project so may I ask where exactly are people getting the whole"OMG Joker made him a recluse" from?

Physically Batman seemed as capable as before,like I said previously his physical condition did'nt hinder his fighting prowess.He struggled more against Joker thugs than against Bane's mercs armed with assault rifles(which he dodged around).Simply put BB Batman>TDKR Batman>>TDK Batman.

Although your joking, it's actually a good point. All these people saying batman would've killed bane in his prime seem to overlook the fact that he struggled mightily with a 50 plus year old ra's lol. And no one can convince me bane would struggle with the ra's from begins. Having said that, this debate reminds me of " my dad could beat up your dad".. Except infinitely more pathetic seeing as the characters involved are fictional and the posters involved in said debate are supposedly older than 10.

*Insert comment that tries to sound objective, but has an obvious bias here. Also include comment that bashes posters for having discussion, but really is just bashing posters with viewpoint opposite mine*

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."

*Insert comment that tries to sound objective, but has an obvious bias here. Also include comment that bashes posters for having discussion, but really is just bashing posters with viewpoint opposite mine*

Forget it man, it's in the past. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if you are?...

*Insert comment that tries to sound objective, but has an obvious bias here. Also include comment that bashes posters for having discussion, but really is just bashing posters with viewpoint opposite mine*

*pot meet kettle. How many words can I use to pretend to be clever and sound cute without just being direct and saying what I think*

Forget it man, it's in the past. I'm willing to let bygones be bygones if you are?...

Hug?...

I'm not talking about you, Van. Not only did you say outright "I think this thread is Batman and Joker fans stroking their ego", but you've actually tried to come at this from an objective manner. Other guys are essentially trying to say what you did, while trying to sound as objective as you are. But they clearly have a bias in the discussion that they try to act like they're above, so it just comes off as hypocritical and essentially "let me vent cause they dont agree with me".

Quote:

Originally Posted by batbax

*pot meet kettle. How many words can I use to pretend to be clever and sound cute without just being direct and saying what I think*

Yawn.

Um...its pretty clear what I think from the post you just quoted. I think I'll leave it at that without getting too insulting.

__________________"There is a difference between you and me. We both looked into the abyss, but when it looked back at us... you blinked."